From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

A clock does not change no matter how many differently moving observers
buzz around it. Both its reading and rate are therefore frame
independent...In other words absolute. Since a clock counts the cycles of
an oscillator, it follows that the period of any oscillator defines an absolute interval of time.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

A clock does not change no matter how many differently moving observers
buzz around it.

Correct.

And neither does a ruler.

If ten observers buzz around a 1-metre ruler, the ruler does not
physically change ten times.

Congratulations: we agree that changing reference frame does not
physically modify the object being described.

Both its reading and rate are therefore frame independent

The first does not imply the second.

You have quietly omitted:

rate WITH RESPECT TO WHAT?

Along the clock's own worldline it records its proper time tau.

Of course everybody can agree that between two events on that
worldline the clock recorded, say,

Delta tau = 1 second.

That quantity is invariant.

But an observer using coordinate time t assigns the rate

d tau/dt.

Another inertial observer uses t' and assigns

d tau/dt'.

There is absolutely no logical reason why these ratios must be
equal merely because the physical clock itself hasn't changed.

In SR,

d tau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Different observers assign different v and different coordinate
times, while agreeing on the SAME proper time recorded by the
SAME clock.

There is no contradiction.


Here is the Newtonian version of your mistake.

A car's odometer does not change when different observers buzz
around it.

Its reading is perfectly well defined.

Does it follow that

dx/dt

must have the same value in every frame?

Obviously not.

The object is unchanged.

Its coordinate velocity is frame-dependent.

In other words absolute.

No.

You have confused

invariant proper time

with

absolute universal time.

Those are almost opposite ideas.

Proper time is attached to a particular worldline.

Newtonian absolute time would assign the same elapsed time
independently of the worldline.

Calling the former "absolute" does not magically turn it into
the latter.

Since a clock counts the cycles of an oscillator, it follows that the
period of any oscillator defines an absolute interval of time.

No again.

Suppose the oscillator makes exactly N cycles between two events
A and B on its worldline.

Everyone may agree:

N = 9,192,631,770

and therefore that this clock accumulated one second of proper
time.

But different inertial frames need not assign the same
coordinate-time interval to A and B.

That is precisely what Lorentz transformations describe.


Your argument is therefore:

1. Changing coordinates doesn't physically alter an oscillator.

True.

2. Therefore every frame must assign the same coordinate-time
interval to its oscillations.

Doesn't follow.

You have confused changing the CLOCK with changing the
COORDINATES used to describe the clock.


And there is a wonderfully simple test of your "absolute
oscillator period" idea.

Take two identical atomic clocks.

Separate them.

Make them follow different trajectories.

Bring them back together.

Now there is only ONE frame needed for the final comparison.

If they display different elapsed times, buzzing observers have
nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The clocks are sitting next to each other.

Read them.

That is why relativistic clock experiments are so devastating
to the "it's all just what observers see" objection.

Nobody needs to SEE a moving clock running slowly.

You let the clocks travel.

You reunite them.

You compare the numbers.

Nature keeps the accounts.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 22/09/2026 |a 22:53, Python a |-crit :

A clock does not change no matter how many differently moving observers
buzz around it.

Correct.

There are, after all, some things in relativity that are obviousrCothough, unfortunately, very few. This explains the number of dissenters since
1905.
The concept of invariant proper time is one of them.
Take the half-life of a muon, for instance: it is 2.197 -|s.
This is obviously invariant under a change of reference frame.
No matter which reference frame I place my muons inrCoeven an accelerating onerCothe muon is always at rest relative to itself; it is space that
moves around it.
It simply functions mechanically: every 2.197 -|s, half of its population
has decayedrCowherever it happens to be.
What is relative is the duration measured by observers situated
"elsewhere" than the muonsrCothat is, in different kinematic reference framesrCowho view things with a "different eye."
This relates to the concept of the internal timekeeping rate of clocks (chronotripe interne).
It is the very foundation of any relativistic theory.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Take the half-life of a muon, for instance: it is 2.197 -|s.

No, Richard.

Before rebuilding relativity for the benefit of Humanity, there
is a small problem with the muon.

2.197 -|s is NOT its half-life.

It is its mean lifetime tau.

The decay law is

N(tau) = N0 exp(-tau/tau_mu)

with

tau_mu ~= 2.197 -|s.

The half-life is therefore

T_1/2 = tau_mu ln(2)
~= 1.523 -|s.

So this is also wrong:

every 2.197 -|s, half of its population has decayed

After one mean lifetime, the surviving fraction is

exp(-1) ~= 0.368,

not 0.5.

About 63.2% have decayed.

After 1.523 -|s, 50% have decayed.


That correction aside, something rather amusing has happened.

Most of the rest of your paragraph is simply standard
relativity.

The concept of invariant proper time is one of them.

Yes.

the muon is always at rest relative to itself

More precisely: at every event of its timelike worldline there
is a momentarily comoving inertial frame.

Yes.

What is relative is the duration measured by observers
situated "elsewhere" than the muons

Modulo your peculiar wording, yes again.

For a muon moving inertially relative to the laboratory:

Delta t = gamma Delta tau.

The muon's decay is governed by its proper time tau.

The laboratory assigns a different coordinate-time interval t.

This is undergraduate SR.


You then rename part of this

"chronotropie interne"

but so far I don't see what new physical statement the new word
adds.

And this sentence needs more care:

even an accelerating onerCothe muon is always at rest relative
to itself; it is space that moves around it.

No.

"The muon is locally at rest in its instantaneous rest frame"
is standard and precise.

"Space moves around it" is not an equivalent physical law.

For an accelerated worldline there is, in general, no single
global inertial frame in which the muon remains at rest.

There is a succession of momentarily comoving inertial frames.


But the particularly funny thing is where we have arrived:

proper time is invariant;

a clock measures proper time along its worldline;

different observers may assign different coordinate times;

the moving clock is locally at rest in its own
instantaneous rest frame.

Richard, congratulations.

You have just given Ralph a reasonably serviceable introductory
lesson in Special Relativity.

Correct "half-life" to "mean lifetime", remove "space moves
around it", and postpone "chronotropie interne" until it makes a
prediction different from the standard formalism, and I could
almost use the paragraph in a classroom.

Which makes your description of yourself as an
"hyper-relativist" increasingly entertaining.

After forty years spent attacking relativity from above, you
are presently explaining its elementary concept of proper time
to someone attacking it from below.

Usenet does occasionally achieve equilibrium.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 23/09/2026 |a 00:39, Python a |-crit :

Take the half-life of a muon, for instance: it is 2.197 -|s.

No, Richard.

Before rebuilding relativity for the benefit of Humanity, there
is a small problem with the muon.

2.197 -|s is NOT its half-life.

It is its mean lifetime tau.

The decay law is

N(tau) = N0 exp(-tau/tau_mu)

with

tau_mu ~= 2.197 -|s.

The half-life is therefore

T_1/2 = tau_mu ln(2)
~= 1.523 -|s.

So this is also wrong:

every 2.197 -|s, half of its population has decayed

After one mean lifetime, the surviving fraction is

exp(-1) ~= 0.368,

not 0.5.

About 63.2% have decayed.

After 1.523 -|s, 50% have decayed.

Alors l|a, c'est pas de ma faute.

Prends-toi en |a ChatGPT |a qui j'ai demand|- de me donner la demi-vie du muon, et qui m'a induit en erreur, donnant une valeur fausse.

Je suis |-tonn|- que l'IA puisse r|-pondre |a c||t|- de la plaque sur un truc quand m|-me simple.

<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?S-bkhQ_1GTJVJ-H8LOwUr0k4qpQ@jntp/Data.Media:1>


R.H.






--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 22 Sep 26 20:53:31 +0000, Python wrote:

A clock does not change no matter how many differently moving observers
buzz around it.

Correct.

And neither does a ruler.

If ten observers buzz around a 1-metre ruler, the ruler does not
physically change ten times.

Congratulations: we agree that changing reference frame does not
physically modify the object being described.

Both its reading and rate are therefore frame independent

The first does not imply the second.

You have quietly omitted:

rate WITH RESPECT TO WHAT?

Along the clock's own worldline it records its proper time tau.

Of course everybody can agree that between two events on that worldline
the clock recorded, say,

Delta tau = 1 second.

That quantity is invariant.

But an observer using coordinate time t assigns the rate

d tau/dt.

Another inertial observer uses t' and assigns

d tau/dt'.

There is absolutely no logical reason why these ratios must be equal
merely because the physical clock itself hasn't changed.

In SR,

d tau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Different observers assign different v and different coordinate times,
while agreeing on the SAME proper time recorded by the SAME clock.

There is no contradiction.

Here is the Newtonian version of your mistake.

A car's odometer does not change when different observers buzz around
it.

Its reading is perfectly well defined.

Does it follow that

dx/dt

must have the same value in every frame?

Obviously not.

The object is unchanged.

Its coordinate velocity is frame-dependent.

In other words absolute.

No.

You have confused

invariant proper time

with

absolute universal time.

Those are almost opposite ideas.

Proper time is attached to a particular worldline.

Newtonian absolute time would assign the same elapsed time independently
of the worldline.

Calling the former "absolute" does not magically turn it into the
latter.

Since a clock counts the cycles of an oscillator, it follows that the
period of any oscillator defines an absolute interval of time.

No again.

Suppose the oscillator makes exactly N cycles between two events A and B
on its worldline.

Everyone may agree:

N = 9,192,631,770

and therefore that this clock accumulated one second of proper time.

But different inertial frames need not assign the same coordinate-time interval to A and B.

That is precisely what Lorentz transformations describe.

Your argument is therefore:

1. Changing coordinates doesn't physically alter an oscillator.

True.

2. Therefore every frame must assign the same coordinate-time
interval to its oscillations.

Doesn't follow.

You have confused changing the CLOCK with changing the COORDINATES used
to describe the clock.

And there is a wonderfully simple test of your "absolute oscillator
period" idea.

Take two identical atomic clocks.

Separate them.

Make them follow different trajectories.

Bring them back together.

Now there is only ONE frame needed for the final comparison.

If they display different elapsed times, buzzing observers have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The clocks are sitting next to each other.

Read them.

That is why relativistic clock experiments are so devastating to the
"it's all just what observers see" objection.

Nobody needs to SEE a moving clock running slowly.

You let the clocks travel.

You reunite them.

You compare the numbers.

Nature keeps the accounts.

You are assuming the time coordinates on the worldlines of different
observers have different values. You are using the typical circular logic
of an Einsteinian worshipper..

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 22 Sep 26 22:39:04 +0000, Python wrote:

Take the half-life of a muon, for instance: it is 2.197 -|s.

No, Richard.

Before rebuilding relativity for the benefit of Humanity, there is a
small problem with the muon.

2.197 -|s is NOT its half-life.

It is its mean lifetime tau.

The decay law is

N(tau) = N0 exp(-tau/tau_mu)

with

tau_mu ~= 2.197 -|s.

The half-life is therefore

T_1/2 = tau_mu ln(2)
~= 1.523 -|s.

So this is also wrong:

every 2.197 -|s, half of its population has decayed

After one mean lifetime, the surviving fraction is

exp(-1) ~= 0.368,

not 0.5.

About 63.2% have decayed.

After 1.523 -|s, 50% have decayed.

That correction aside, something rather amusing has happened.

Most of the rest of your paragraph is simply standard relativity.

The concept of invariant proper time is one of them.

Yes.

the muon is always at rest relative to itself

More precisely: at every event of its timelike worldline there is a momentarily comoving inertial frame.

Yes.

What is relative is the duration measured by observers situated
"elsewhere" than the muons

Modulo your peculiar wording, yes again.

For a muon moving inertially relative to the laboratory:

Delta t = gamma Delta tau.

The muon's decay is governed by its proper time tau.

The laboratory assigns a different coordinate-time interval t.

This is undergraduate SR.

You then rename part of this

"chronotropie interne"

but so far I don't see what new physical statement the new word adds.

And this sentence needs more care:

even an accelerating onerCothe muon is always at rest relative to itself;
it is space that moves around it.

No.

"The muon is locally at rest in its instantaneous rest frame" is
standard and precise.

"Space moves around it" is not an equivalent physical law.

For an accelerated worldline there is, in general, no single global
inertial frame in which the muon remains at rest.

There is a succession of momentarily comoving inertial frames.

But the particularly funny thing is where we have arrived:

proper time is invariant;

a clock measures proper time along its worldline;

different observers may assign different coordinate times;

the moving clock is locally at rest in its own instantaneous rest
frame.

....and any relative movement does not change it in any way.

Richard, congratulations.

You have just given Ralph a reasonably serviceable introductory lesson
in Special Relativity.

Correct "half-life" to "mean lifetime", remove "space moves around it",
and postpone "chronotropie interne" until it makes a prediction
different from the standard formalism, and I could almost use the
paragraph in a classroom.

Which makes your description of yourself as an "hyper-relativist" increasingly entertaining.

After forty years spent attacking relativity from above, you are
presently explaining its elementary concept of proper time to someone attacking it from below.

Usenet does occasionally achieve equilibrium.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/22/2026 10:53 PM, Python wrote:

Along the clock's own worldline it records its proper time tau.

Anyone can check GPS, this mad assertion
has nothing in common wit the real clocks.
It's just a nonsensical try to enforce
engineers to participate in your madness.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Henry,

No. Read what I actually wrote.

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines
will show different elapsed times.

I said:

Take two identical clocks.
Separate them.
Give them different trajectories.
Reunite them.
Compare their readings.

There is no assumption about the result in that procedure.

They might read:

Clock A: 100000.000000 s
Clock B: 100000.000000 s

or:

Clock A: 100000.000000 s
Clock B: 99999.999997 s

THE CLOCKS DECIDE.

Your claim of absolute time predicts the former, subject of course
to ordinary instrumental effects.

Relativity predicts the latter whenever the two worldlines have
different proper durations.

Calling this "circular logic" is rather wonderful.

The whole purpose of doing the experiment is precisely NOT to
assume which prediction is correct.

And notice that I deliberately brought the clocks back together.
No distant simultaneity.
No telescope.
No "buzzing observers".
No argument about what somebody sees.
No need even to compare two coordinate systems at the end.

Two clocks.
One table.
Two readings.

If you want to defend absolute time, give YOUR quantitative
prediction for such an experiment and compare it with the
measurements.

"Einsteinian worshipper" is not a prediction.

Nature keeps the accounts.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 11:55 AM, Python wrote:

Henry,

No. Read what I actually wrote.

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines
will show different elapsed times.

I said:

-a-a Take two identical clocks.
-a-a Separate them.
-a-a Give them different trajectories.
-a-a Reunite them.
-a-a Compare their readings.

There is no assumption about the result in that procedure.

Try it with pendulums. As identical as you
wish.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 23/09/2026 |a 12:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 11:55 AM, Python wrote:

Henry,

No. Read what I actually wrote.

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines
will show different elapsed times.

I said:

-a-a Take two identical clocks.
-a-a Separate them.
-a-a Give them different trajectories.
-a-a Reunite them.
-a-a Compare their readings.

There is no assumption about the result in that procedure.

Try it with pendulums. As identical as you
wish.

Excellent idea, Maciej.

Take two identical pendulum clocks.

Keep one in Paris and carry the other to the Moon.

Reunite them.

They will disagree enormously.

Have we therefore discovered that time depends on the worldline?

No.

We have discovered that a pendulum is not an ideal clock:
its period is

T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g)

and you changed g.

That's precisely why experimental relativity is not tested
by carrying grandfather clocks around in vans.

Now repeat the experiment with atomic clocks, whose relevant
environmental effects can be measured and controlled.

And, historically, people did essentially that.

They disagreed after following different worldlines by the
amount relativity predicts.

So yes, by all means try pendulums.

Then try sundials, hourglasses and water clocks if you like.

Eventually we can work our way up to the instruments actually
used for precision time metrology.

One of the best logicians Humanity ever had has apparently
reached the pendulum stage.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 12:31 PM, Python wrote:

Le 23/09/2026 |a 12:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 11:55 AM, Python wrote:

Henry,

No. Read what I actually wrote.

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines
will show different elapsed times.

I said:

-a-a-a Take two identical clocks.
-a-a-a Separate them.
-a-a-a Give them different trajectories.
-a-a-a Reunite them.
-a-a-a Compare their readings.

There is no assumption about the result in that procedure.

Try it with pendulums. As identical as you
wish.

Excellent idea, Maciej.

Take two identical pendulum clocks.

Keep one in Paris and carry the other to the Moon.

Reunite them.

They will disagree enormously.

Have we therefore discovered that time depends on the worldline?

No.

We have discovered that a pendulum is not an ideal clock:

Sure, we should always remember: we're
only allowed to discover what the idiot
has predicted, and we have to always
listen to his priests telling us what
we discovered.

Anyway, yes, poor piece of shit - you
HAVE made an assumption about the result
in that procedure. The pendulums don't
fit the result you assumed - so they
are not ideal.






--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

No, Maciej.

A pendulum is not rejected because it gives the "wrong result".

It is rejected because, BEFORE doing the experiment, we already know

T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g)

so changing g changes its rate.

That prediction does not come from Einstein.
It doesn't even need relativity.

Put one pendulum in Paris and another on the Moon and their
different readings tell you mainly that g is different.

That's called controlling an experiment.

By your reasoning, if I want to test relativistic clock rates
with two hourglasses and turn one upside down, I'm forbidden
to mention gravity because that would be "assuming the result".

This is becoming wonderfully simple:

Known systematic effect -> "Einsteinian assumption"
Control for systematic effect -> "religion"
Atomic-clock experiment -> "priests"
NTS-2 result -> "initial mess"

And when asked what experiment YOU would accept:

pendulums.

One of the best logicians Humanity ever had has apparently
discovered experimental physics, but hasn't reached
"control variables" yet.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 1:15 PM, Python wrote:

No, Maciej.

A pendulum is not rejected because it gives the "wrong result".

Would you also reject it if it didn't
give wrong result?

Fine. Now take 2 identical pulsar clocks.
Why will you reject these ones, poor piece
of shit?

A rethorical question. A brainwashed fanatic
idiot will always find a reason.

Anyway, The Shit is not basing on any
experiments or measurements, it's basing
on your mad assertion that perfect clocks
are the desynchronizing clocks fitting
your other assertions.




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

You didn't answer the question.

A pendulum is known IN ADVANCE to have

T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g).

So if I change g, its rate changes for a perfectly mundane
and quantitatively predictable reason.

That has nothing to do with whether its result is convenient
for Einstein.

Now you propose:

"two identical pulsar clocks."

Excellent.

Please put two identical pulsars on the table.

Synchronize them.

Send them along two different trajectories.

Bring them back together.

Read them side by side.

I'll wait.

A pulsar is a remote astronomical source whose pulses we
receive and time. It is not a portable clock that can perform
the reunion experiment I described.

You have therefore progressed from

pendulum

to

pulsar

without ever reaching

atomic clock,

which is slightly unfortunate because THAT experiment can
actually be done.


And your mantra has now completed another full orbit:

ME:
Ideal clocks can accumulate different proper times.

MACIEJ:
You assert that desynchronizing makes clocks ideal!

ME:
No. Those propositions are different.

MACIEJ:
Try pendulums!

ME:
Pendulum rate depends on g.

MACIEJ:
Aha! You reject clocks that don't fit Einstein!
Try pulsars!

At this rate the next experimental apparatus will presumably
be two identical quasars in suitcases.


There is still one very simple experiment on the table:

two suitable atomic clocks;
initially compared;
different trajectories;
reunited;
final local comparison.

No distant synchronization is needed for the final reading.

So what does YOUR theory predict for their difference?

A number, Maciej.

Not "Shit".
Not "priests".
Not "brainwashed fanatic".
Not another kind of clock.

A number.

One of the best logicians Humanity ever had should eventually
be able to progress from adjectives to arithmetic.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 1:35 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

You didn't answer the question.

A pendulum is known IN ADVANCE to have

-a-a-a-a-a-a T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g).

Python, you didn't answer the question.
So, pendulum is allegedly not rejected
because it's giving a wrong result -
would you reject it if it didn't?

Now you propose:

-a-a-a-a-a-a "two identical pulsar clocks."

Excellent.

Please put two identical pulsars on the table.

Don't pretend you don't distinguish between
a pulsar clock and a pulsar, you can't be
THAT stupid.
Or can you?
Well, not quite impossible. So:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar_clock

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

First, your pendulum question, since you insist I didn't answer it:

would you reject it if it didn't give wrong result?

YES.

For this experiment, absolutely.

Even if the pendulum happened to give exactly the relativistic
difference predicted for the two trajectories, I would NOT regard
that as a clean test of relativistic proper time.

Why?

Because its rate has a known dependence on its environment:

T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g)

plus corrections for amplitude, temperature, support motion, etc.

So if I transport it through changing gravitational and mechanical
conditions, its final disagreement contains effects that have nothing
to do with the effect I am trying to isolate.

If by sheer coincidence those effects produced exactly Einstein's
predicted number, that would NOT magically make the pendulum an
ideal clock.

It would make it a lousy experiment which happened to give the
"right" answer.

This is rather important, because it destroys your accusation:

"You reject clocks when they give the wrong result."

No.

I reject an unsuitable clock BEFORE knowing whether its result
will be "right" or "wrong".

That's what experimental controls are for.

If I test gravitational redshift with two thermometers and one
happens to display +38 microseconds, I don't publish:

EINSTEIN CONFIRMED BY THERMOMETER.

Even if I desperately like Einstein.


Now, your second proposal:

take 2 identical pulsar clocks.

Fair correction first.

I took "pulsar clock" to mean the pulsar used as a clock, whereas
you meant the terrestrial device deriving a time reference from
received pulsar pulses.

My mistake.

But that doesn't rescue your argument.

Your own link says that currently only one such clock exists, so

"take 2 identical pulsar clocks"

is already a rather ambitious experimental protocol.

But fine. Build another one.

A pulsar clock derives its indication from radio pulses emitted
by distant astronomical objects.

Move two such receivers along different trajectories and their
pulse arrival times involve receiver position and motion,
propagation delays, source directions, timing corrections, etc.

All of that can in principle be modelled.

But you have now transformed my deliberately simple experiment

two local clocks
-> separate
-> different trajectories
-> reunite
-> compare locally

into

remote astronomical transmitters
+ radio propagation
+ moving receivers
+ astronomical timing model.

Why?

We already have portable atomic clocks specifically suited to
precision timing experiments.


So far your experimental programme has been:

Atomic clocks?

No! Try pendulums!

Pendulum periods depend on g?

AHA! You reject the wrong result!
Try pulsar clocks!

Pulsar clocks?

Remote astronomical sources and timing models.

At this rate I still expect the next proposal to involve
two identical Stonehenges.


And meanwhile the embarrassingly simple question remains:

Take two suitable atomic clocks.
Compare them.
Separate them.
Give them different trajectories.
Reunite them.
Compare them again.

Relativity gives a quantitative prediction for the difference.

What does YOUR alternative predict?

A number, Maciej.

Not "Shit".
Not "priest".
Not "fanatic".
Not another clock technology.

A number.

And notice something rather delightful:

I just admitted immediately that I was wrong about what you meant
by "pulsar clock".

Apparently being "brainwashed" still leaves me capable of saying:

I was wrong.

Perhaps one of the best logicians Humanity ever had could try it
sometime.

Purely as an experiment.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 2:04 PM, Python wrote:

So far your experimental programme has been:

-a-a Atomic clocks?

-a-a-a-a-a-a No! Try pendulums!

-a-a Pendulum periods depend on g?

-a-a-a-a-a-a AHA! You reject the wrong result!
-a-a-a-a-a-a Try pulsar clocks!

-a-a Pulsar clocks?

-a-a-a-a-a-a Remote astronomical sources and timing models.

Of course, you're lying, like always.
It was
Any clocks!!! No assumptions!!!
try pendulums?
NOO!!!!
try pulsar clocks?
NOO!!!!
"Any clocks" means "any clocks fitting
my mad religion" for you. Of course.


Anyway, The Shit is not basing on any
experiments or measurements, it's basing
on your mad assertion that perfect clocks
are the desynchronizing clocks fitting
your other assertions.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

"Any clocks" does not mean "any physical object humans have
ever called a clock."

Otherwise:

pendulum in changing g,
melting candle,
hourglass in free fall,
sundial in a suitcase

must all be equally valid precision clocks.

And yes: I would reject the pendulum EVEN IF it accidentally
gave Einstein's predicted result.

You somehow keep editing that sentence out of your universe.

So your argument is now:

"You only accept clocks suitable for measuring time
accurately! RELIGION!"

Devastating.

One of the best logicians Humanity ever had has discovered
instrument selection.

Next week: thermometers.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 2:30 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

"Any clocks" does not mean "any physical object humans have
ever called a clock."

Sure. It means "any physical object
fitting mad prophecies of my beloved
guru about clocks".
If the idiot predicted sharks eating grass
you would call a sheep "a shark" and
announce his predictions confirmed.

So your argument is now:

-a-a "You only accept clocks suitable for measuring time
-a-a-a accurately! RELIGION!"

Sorry, poor trash, anyone can check GPS,
your idiocies are NOT suitable to measure
time accurately.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

No.

I gave you the criterion BEFORE the result:

A pendulum is unsuitable because its rate has known
environmental dependencies.

And I explicitly told you I would reject it EVEN IF it
gave Einstein's predicted result.

You have now ignored that twice.

As for:

"anyone can check GPS"

Excellent.

We did.

Then I gave you NTS-2: an uncompensated atomic clock was
actually flown, and its measured rate shift agreed with the
relativistic prediction.

Your answer was:

"initial mess".

So your experimental method is becoming beautifully clear:

pendulum disagrees -> valid clock
atomic clock agrees -> religion
NTS-2 agrees -> initial mess
GPS engineers compensate -> proof they shouldn't compensate

And then:

"anyone can check GPS"

We did, Maciej.

You didn't like what GPS said.

Apparently the sheep was a shark until it started eating grass.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 2:50 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

No.

I gave you the criterion BEFORE the result:

A pendulum is unsuitable because its rate has known
environmental dependencies.

And I explicitly told you I would reject it EVEN IF it
gave Einstein's predicted result.

For sure the reasons why you reject pulsar
clocks are also completely unrelated
to Einstein. And for any other clock not
giving you what the idiot wanted as
well.

You have now ignored that twice.

As for:

-a-a "anyone can check GPS"

Excellent.

We did.

Then I gave you NTS-2: an uncompensated atomic clock was

Uncompensated atomic clock is not there.
And why?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PRECISE
TIME MEASUREMENT.
If it was suitable for it - it would be
used for it. Yes, it's that simple.




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

This is magnificent.

Uncompensated atomic clock is not there.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PRECISE TIME MEASUREMENT.

No.

The uncompensated NTS-2 cesium clock WAS there.

And it was precise enough to measure:

predicted relativistic shift: ~445 x 10^-12
measured shift: ~442.5 x 10^-12

THEN the correction was applied.

You have just confused:

"a clock accurately measuring its own rate"

with

"a clock deliberately adjusted to realize GPS coordinate time".

Those are not the same thing.

In fact your argument is wonderful:

Why do GPS clocks not drift relativistically?

Because engineers compensate the relativistic drift.

Why do engineers compensate it?

Because otherwise they drift.

What proves relativity?

The measured drift before compensation.

What does Maciej call that measurement?

"initial mess".

This is no longer an objection to the experiment.

It's an experimental result disposal system.

Nature gave the wrong answer, so one of the best logicians
Humanity ever had has declared the control experiment
"unsuitable".

The steak has become a potato again.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 3:35 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

This is magnificent.

Uncompensated atomic clock is not there.
BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PRECISE TIME MEASUREMENT.

No.

The uncompensated NTS-2 cesium clock WAS there.

So why was it turned off?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PRECISE TIME MEASUREMENT.
If it was suitable for it - it would be used for it.
Yes, it's that simple.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Because the EXPERIMENT was over.

That's the part you keep deleting.

NTS-2 was deliberately operated for about 20 days WITHOUT the
relativistic frequency correction.

During that period its cesium clock was sufficiently precise to
MEASURE the effect:

predicted: ~445 x 10^-12
measured: ~442.5 x 10^-12

Then the frequency correction was switched on so that the
satellite clock would realize the desired GPS time scale.

Your argument is literally:

Why did they correct the clock?

Because the uncorrected rate differed.

Why did the uncorrected rate differ?

RELIGION!

It's like measuring that a ruler is 2 mm too long, recording the
2 mm, calibrating it, and then Maciej announcing:

"AHA! Why did you calibrate it?
BECAUSE IT COULDN'T MEASURE LENGTH!"

No.

The fact that you can measure the error accurately is precisely
what allows you to correct it accurately.

And in NTS-2 they measured the "mad prophecy" BEFORE applying
the correction.

This time "gedanken" had a satellite.

You just don't like what the satellite said.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 3:49 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Because the EXPERIMENT was over.

Your childish game was over and serious
measurements started. And your idiocy
was unsuitable for them.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Ah.

So now we have the complete Maciej chronology:

Relativity predicts the rate shift BEFORE the experiment.

NTS-2 flies WITHOUT the correction.

The clock actually shows the predicted rate shift.

-> "childish game"
-> "initial mess"

Engineers then apply the correction based on that effect.

-> "serious measurements"

And the fact that the corrected clock no longer shows
the uncorrected drift is supposed to DISPROVE the
prediction which told them how much to correct.

Beautiful.

This wasn't:

observe mysterious drift
-> invent explanation afterwards.

It was:

RELATIVITY:
predicts ~445 x 10^-12

NTS-2:
measures ~442.5 x 10^-12

ENGINEERS:
switch on the correction

MACIEJ:
the first part was a childish game.

That's a rather unusual application of the scientific method:

prediction agrees with measurement
-> measurement doesn't count

predicted correction is applied
-> corrected system counts

corrected system no longer exhibits the uncorrected drift
-> prediction was nonsense

NTS-2 didn't merely measure the effect, Maciej.

It measured an effect that relativity had PREDICTED in advance,
to about one percent.

This time "gedanken" had a satellite,
a cesium clock,
a numerical prediction,
and a measured result.

Nature voted.

You declared the polling station childish.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 3:54 PM, Python wrote:

Ah.

So now we have the complete Maciej chronology:

Your mad lies change nothing, poor piece of shit.
Your ideological nonsense is unusable for
serious measurements, which give t'=t result.
The Shit is not based on any measurements
or experiments, it is based on utterly
idiotic assertions about ideal clocks, ignored
by every sane people. And if the idiot predicted
sharks eating grass - you would call a sheep
"a shark" and announce his predictions confirmed.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

let's make this even easier.

Forget NTS-2 for a moment.

There is an experiment running RIGHT NOW.

ACES -- Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space -- is installed on the ISS.

It carries:

PHARAO, a cold-caesium atomic clock

and

SHM, a space hydrogen maser.

Its explicit scientific objectives include comparing the space
clocks with atomic clocks on Earth and testing Einstein's
gravitational time-dilation/redshift prediction.

The clocks are in operation.
The experiment is current.
The science mission is collecting data.

So this gives us a wonderful opportunity.

The final scientific result is not something you and I can
retroactively choose.

Let's record your prediction NOW.

When the ACES gravitational-redshift result is published,
what do you expect it to show?

A) Agreement with Einstein's predicted gravitational
clock-rate effect, within the experimental uncertainty.

B) No such relativistic clock-rate effect.

C) Something else -- in which case please give the
quantitative prediction.

No "priests".
No "initial mess".
No "childish game".
No declaring the clocks unsuitable AFTER seeing the result.

Make your prediction now, while Nature's envelope is still
sealed.

Mine is easy:

ACES will find the gravitational clock-rate effect
consistent with the relativistic prediction within its
stated experimental uncertainty.

What's yours?

This should be fun.

And when the paper appears, neither of us gets to change
our answer.

Nature gets a vote.

This time we're asking Maciej to cast his BEFORE the counting.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 4:02 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

let's make this even easier.

Forget NTS-2 for a moment.

There is an experiment running RIGHT NOW.

It also changes nothing.

ACES -- Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space -- is installed on the ISS.

It carries:

-a-a PHARAO, a cold-caesium atomic clock

and

-a-a SHM, a space hydrogen maser.

Its explicit scientific objectives include comparing the space
clocks with atomic clocks on Earth and testing Einstein's
gravitational time-dilation/redshift prediction.

There is no time dilation. There is only
a mad assertion that perfect clocks are
desynchronizing clocks, ignored by every
sane people and any serious measurement
equipment.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

you didn't answer the question.

We already know your sermon:

"There is no time dilation."
"perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"
"mad assertion"
"sane people"
"serious equipment"

Fine.

ACES is running NOW.

PHARAO and the space hydrogen maser are in orbit NOW.

The experiment is explicitly comparing clocks on the ISS
with clocks on Earth and testing the relativistic prediction.

So let's forget terminology.

Relativity predicts a definite clock-rate effect.

You say there is no such effect.

Excellent.

Then make your prediction BEFORE the result is published.

What will ACES measure?

1. The relativistic clock-rate effect, within experimental
uncertainty.

2. No relativistic clock-rate effect.

3. Something else -- give the quantitative prediction.

That's all.

You have spent years telling us that experiments contradict
Einstein.

Here is an experiment actually running while we are having
this conversation.

So predict its result.

NOW.

Because after publication I don't want to hear that:

the clocks were unsuitable,
the experiment was a childish game,
there was an initial mess,
the scientists were priests,
or serious measurements only began after compensation.

The envelope is still sealed, Maciej.

Put your prediction on the table before we open it.

Mine is:

ACES will measure the gravitational clock-rate effect
consistent with relativity within its stated uncertainty.

Yours is...?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 4:27 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

you didn't answer the question.

We already know your sermon:

-a-a "There is no time dilation."
-a-a "perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"
-a-a "mad assertion"
-a-a "sane people"
-a-a "serious equipment"

Fine.

ACES is running NOW.

PHARAO and the space hydrogen maser are in orbit NOW.

Great, but if your "perfect clocks-desynchronizing
clocks" assertion is not bought - all your precious
measurements confirming your precious Shit are erroneous.

I've told you - physics is a self-sealing fraud.
Always was, just less impudent and less idiotic
before the idiot came.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Excellent.

So we have finally reached the self-sealing part.

BEFORE ACES publishes its result, you already tell us:

if it confirms relativity,
the measurements are erroneous.

And why are they erroneous?

because they confirm the premise you reject.

That's not a prediction.
That's an experimental result disposal system.

So, once again:

ACES is running NOW.
The result is not yet on the table.

Relativity makes a quantitative prediction.

What do YOU predict ACES will actually MEASURE?

Not what you will call the measurement afterwards.

What numerical/physical result do you expect the instruments
to produce?

Because this is the perfect opportunity to distinguish:

a theory that risks a prediction

from

"whatever the experiment says, physics is a fraud."

The envelope is still sealed.

Your prediction, Maciej?

Or shall we record your prediction as:

"If Nature agrees with Einstein, Nature measured it wrong"?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

"perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

is NOT my assertion.

It is YOUR assertion about what relativity says.

I have repeatedly explained the actual statement:

ideal clocks measure proper time along their worldlines;

and two ideal clocks following different worldlines can
accumulate different proper times.

DESYNCHRONIZATION is not what makes a clock ideal.

That's your formulation, not mine.

Please stop putting your sentence in my mouth and then
refuting it.

And there is another interesting problem.

You keep invoking:

"sane people"
"serious measurement equipment"
"real engineers"

Yet, as far as I know, you have produced exactly ZERO
GPS engineers, atomic-clock specialists or metrologists
supporting your claim that relativistic clock corrections
are based on this alleged

"perfect clocks = desynchronizing clocks"

principle.

Instead we have actual engineers and metrologists designing
GPS, Galileo, atomic time scales and ACES using precisely
the relativistic corrections you call "mad".

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 4:44 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Excellent.

So we have finally reached the self-sealing part.

BEFORE ACES publishes its result, you already tell us:

-a-a if it confirms relativity,
-a-a the measurements are erroneous.

Well, you say "if it doesn't it is erroneous" -
after. What is so different about it?

Besides, you're lying, like usual. I'm
saying something else. I'm saying that
whether they are or not - depends on
an assertion.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Well, you say "if it doesn't it is erroneous" - after.

No.

In fact I explicitly told you the OPPOSITE.

Remember the pendulum?

I said I would reject it as a clean test EVEN IF it happened
to give Einstein's predicted result, because its rate has
known environmental dependencies.

The criterion comes BEFORE the result.

That's precisely the difference.

And with ACES we can do even better, because the result is
still in the future.

Relativity has already put a quantitative prediction on the
table.

I have already put mine on the table:

ACES will measure a gravitational clock-rate effect
consistent with that prediction within its stated
experimental uncertainty.

If it doesn't, and the discrepancy survives the stated
systematic-error analysis, THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE AGAINST
THE RELATIVISTIC PREDICTION.

There. Written BEFORE the result.

Now you:

whether they are or not - depends on an assertion.

Which assertion?

Please write it explicitly.

And please don't answer:

"perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

because, for the fourth time, THAT IS YOUR ASSERTION,
not mine and not the definition of an ideal clock in
relativity.

More importantly, tell us what empirical criterion would
make you accept the ACES measurement as valid.

BEFORE you know the result.

Then we have something genuinely scientific:

Einstein's prediction: written down beforehand.
My acceptance criterion: written down beforehand.
Maciej's prediction: ?
Maciej's acceptance criterion: ?

Fill in the two blanks.

Otherwise your position remains:

"whether the experiment is valid depends on whether
I accept the assertion behind it."

And THAT is exactly the self-sealing mechanism you claim
physics suffers from.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 4:58 PM, Python wrote:

-a-a "perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

is NOT my assertion.

You've been already pinned with this lie,
poor piece of shit.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 23/09/2026 |a 17:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 4:58 PM, Python wrote:

-a-a "perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

is NOT my assertion.

You've been already pinned with this lie,
poor piece of shit.

Maciej,

Excellent.

Then this should be extremely easy.

You claim I have been "pinned with this lie".

So quote me.

Quote the exact sentence where I asserted:

"perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

or where I said that DESYNCHRONIZATION is what makes
a clock perfect or ideal.

One quotation will do.

What I have actually said, repeatedly, is:

an ideal clock measures proper time along its worldline;

and

two ideal clocks following different worldlines can
accumulate different amounts of proper time.

That is NOT:

a clock is ideal BECAUSE it desynchronizes.

You keep changing

"ideal clocks CAN accumulate different proper times"

into

"desynchronization MAKES clocks ideal"

and then accusing me of lying when I refuse to accept
your sentence as mine.

So enough adjectives.

You say you've already "pinned" me.

Excellent.

Produce the quotation.

One quotation will do.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 5:14 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Well, you say "if it doesn't it is erroneous" - after.

No.

In fact I explicitly told you the OPPOSITE.

You're a piece lying shit, and indeed a very
stupid one, you often say opposite things.

whether they are or not - depends on an assertion.

Which assertion?

Please write it explicitly.

And please don't answer:

-a-a "perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

because, for the fourth time, THAT IS YOUR ASSERTION,
not mine

Wanna a quoting, poor piece of shit?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 5:18 PM, Python wrote:

Le 23/09/2026 |a 17:15, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 4:58 PM, Python wrote:

-a-a-a "perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

is NOT my assertion.

You've been already pinned with this lie,
poor piece of shit.

Maciej,

Excellent.

Then this should be extremely easy.

You claim I have been "pinned with this lie".

So quote me.

Quote the exact sentence where I asserted:

On 9/22/2026 6:55 PM, Python wrote:

So - aren't those ideal clocks of yours
desynchronizing clocks?

YES.

At last.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Good, Maciej.

THAT is a quotation.

And yes, I said it.

Now read your own question carefully:

"aren't those ideal clocks of yours
desynchronizing clocks?"

YES.

Two ideal clocks following different worldlines can end up
showing different elapsed proper times.

I have never denied that.

But you have transformed that statement into:

"perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

meaning that DESYNCHRONIZATION is what makes them perfect.

That does NOT follow.

Compare:

"Aren't those accurate thermometers showing
different temperatures?"

YES.

does not mean:

"A thermometer is accurate because it shows
a different temperature."

Or:

"Aren't those perfect odometers showing
different mileages?"

YES.

does not mean:

"Different mileage is what makes an odometer perfect."

The logical distinction is elementary:

ideal clocks CAN desynchronize

does not mean

clocks are ideal BECAUSE they desynchronize.

So I withdraw nothing from the quoted YES.

It was correct then and it is correct now.

What I reject is YOUR additional implication.

And now that this magnificent semantic adventure is over:

what do you predict ACES will actually measure?

We still have an empty box where Maciej's prediction
is supposed to be.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 5:34 PM, Python wrote:

Good, Maciej.

THAT is a quotation.

And yes, I said it.

Now read your own question carefully:

-a-a "aren't those ideal clocks of yours
-a-a-a desynchronizing clocks?"

YES.

Yes, perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks.

But you have transformed that statement into:

No, poor piece of shit, I have not transformed
anything, I asked directly whether your perfect
clocks are desynchronizing clocks and you
directly answered "yes".
Well, was about "ideal". Wouldn't be surprising
if you now screamed "I ve said ideal clocks are!
I haven't said perfect clocks are!!!".


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

I think two courses would help at this point:

1. elementary logic;
2. elementary manners.

Let's start with logic.

You asked:

"Aren't those ideal clocks desynchronizing clocks?"

I answered:

YES.

Therefore:

those ideal clocks are desynchronizing.

Correct.

You then repeatedly turn this into:

"perfect clocks are desynchronizing clocks"

as though "desynchronizing" were a defining property of
a perfect clock.

That inference is invalid.

Those sheep are wet.
YES.

does not imply:

Sheep are wet animals.

Those doctors are sleeping.
YES.

does not imply:

Doctors are sleeping people.

Those ideal clocks have desynchronized.
YES.

does not imply:

Desynchronization is what defines an ideal clock.

This is the difference between saying that members of a
class have a property in a particular situation and saying
that the property DEFINES the class.

No amount of "poor piece of shit" repairs that inference.

Which brings us to course number 2.

If you cannot distinguish

"these ideal clocks desynchronize"

from

"a clock is ideal because it desynchronizes",

calling your interlocutor a "piece of shit" is not a
substitute for the missing logic lesson.

It merely demonstrates the need for the manners lesson too.

And after both lessons, perhaps we can return to the question
you are still avoiding:

What do you predict ACES will actually measure?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 5:59 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

I think two courses would help at this point:

-a-a 1. elementary logic;
-a-a 2. elementary manners.

I can't agree, IMO nothing will help you, sorry,
poor piece of shit.

And your mad religion will remain am utterly idiotic,
baseless assertion ignored by every sane people and
any serious measurement equipment.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Still no logic.
Still no ACES prediction.
Still no engineer.
Still no evidence.

But another "poor piece of shit", "mad religion",
"idiotic" and "sane people".

Impressive.

When arguments run out, apparently one of the best
logicians Humanity ever had becomes a broken insult generator.

ACES is running.

Einstein made a prediction.

What's yours?

Take your time. Perhaps after the manners course.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 6:10 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Still no logic.
Still no ACES prediction.
Still no engineer.
Still no evidence.

Python,
your mad lies won't change anything.
Your ideological nonsense is unusable for
serious measurements, which give t'=t result.
The Shit is not based on any measurements
or experiments, it is based on utterly
idiotic assertions about ideal clocks, ignored
by every sane people. And if the idiot predicted
sharks eating grass - you would call a sheep
"a shark" and announce his predictions confirmed.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 23/09/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 6:10 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Still no logic.
Still no ACES prediction.
Still no engineer.
Still no evidence.

Python,
your mad lies won't change anything.
Your ideological nonsense is unusable for
serious measurements, which give t'=t result.
The Shit is not based on any measurements
or experiments, it is based on utterly
idiotic assertions about ideal clocks, ignored
by every sane people. And if the idiot predicted
sharks eating grass - you would call a sheep
"a shark" and announce his predictions confirmed.

Maciej,

Excellent.

Then ACES should measure t'=t.

That's finally a prediction.

So let's write it down:

Einstein: ACES measures the predicted relativistic
clock-rate difference.

Maciej: ACES measures t'=t.

Perfect.

No sharks. No sheep. No priests. No "sane people".

Just clocks.

And when the result is published, please don't suddenly
discover that PHARAO is a sheep.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 6:24 PM, Python wrote:

Le 23/09/2026 |a 18:17, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 6:10 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Still no logic.
Still no ACES prediction.
Still no engineer.
Still no evidence.

Python,
your mad lies won't change anything.
Your ideological nonsense is unusable for
serious measurements, which give t'=t result.
The Shit is not based on any measurements
or experiments, it is based on utterly
idiotic assertions about ideal clocks, ignored
by every sane people. And if the idiot predicted
sharks eating grass - you would call a sheep
"a shark" and announce his-a predictions confirmed.

Maciej,

Excellent.

Then ACES should measure t'=t.

That's finally a prediction.

No. They should measure t'=t - IF they
used perfect clocks.

So let's write it down:

-a-a Einstein: ACES measures the predicted relativistic
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a clock-rate difference.

Nobody cares about rate, even the idiot didn't.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Ah. The prediction has already acquired an escape clause:

ACES should measure t'=t
IF they use "perfect clocks".

And if ACES measures the relativistic effect?

Then obviously they weren't "perfect clocks".

Beautiful.

We haven't even got the ACES result yet and you've already
prepared the emergency exit.

Nobody cares about rate

Maciej, we're discussing CLOCKS.

A clock rate is quite literally what ACES compares.

So before Nature opens the envelope:

What observable property makes a clock "perfect" according
to you, independently of whether it gives t'=t?

Give us the criterion NOW.

Otherwise:

t'=t -> perfect clock
t'!=t -> imperfect clock

isn't a prediction.

It's a definition carefully designed never to lose.

The sheep has now become a "perfect shark".
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 6:35 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Ah. The prediction has already acquired an escape clause:

-a-a ACES should measure t'=t
-a-a IF they use "perfect clocks".

And if ACES measures the relativistic effect?

-a-a Then obviously they weren't "perfect clocks".

Beautiful.

We haven't even got the ACES result yet and you've already
prepared the emergency exit.

Model made by competent people always have
emergency exits.

Nobody cares about rate

Maciej, we're discussing CLOCKS.

A clock rate is quite literally what ACES compares.

So before Nature opens the envelope:

What observable property makes a clock "perfect" according
to you, independently of whether it gives t'=t?

What are you fucking about, poor halfbrain? "perfect"
doesn't exist. How would it get an "observable property"?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 23/09/2026 |a 18:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 6:35 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Ah. The prediction has already acquired an escape clause:

-a-a ACES should measure t'=t
-a-a IF they use "perfect clocks".

And if ACES measures the relativistic effect?

-a-a Then obviously they weren't "perfect clocks".

Beautiful.

We haven't even got the ACES result yet and you've already
prepared the emergency exit.

Model made by competent people always have
emergency exits.

Nobody cares about rate

Maciej, we're discussing CLOCKS.

A clock rate is quite literally what ACES compares.

So before Nature opens the envelope:

What observable property makes a clock "perfect" according
to you, independently of whether it gives t'=t?

What are you fucking about, poor halfbrain? "perfect"
doesn't exist. How would it get an "observable property"?

Maciej,

Wonderful.

Two posts ago:

t'=t IF they used perfect clocks.

Now:

"perfect" doesn't exist
and cannot have an observable property.

So your experimental prediction is:

IF an instrument that doesn't exist
and cannot be identified experimentally is used,
THEN t'=t.

That's not an emergency exit.

That's an emergency teleportation device.

And yes:

"Models made by competent people always have
emergency exits."

No.

A good physical theory has stated CONDITIONS OF VALIDITY.

It does not have an "emergency exit" invented so that
every inconvenient experimental result can be discarded.

Especially when your emergency exit is:

"the required instrument doesn't exist."

Meanwhile ACES uses REAL clocks,
makes REAL measurements,
and relativity predicts what those measurements will be.

You predict what would happen with a nonexistent clock.

One of these propositions can be tested by Nature.

The other has an emergency exit.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 6:59 PM, Python wrote:

Le 23/09/2026 |a 18:52, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :

On 9/23/2026 6:35 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Ah. The prediction has already acquired an escape clause:

-a-a-a ACES should measure t'=t
-a-a-a IF they use "perfect clocks".

And if ACES measures the relativistic effect?

-a-a-a Then obviously they weren't "perfect clocks".

Beautiful.


We haven't even got the ACES result yet and you've already
prepared the emergency exit.

Model made by competent people always have
emergency exits.

Nobody cares about rate

Maciej, we're discussing CLOCKS.

A clock rate is quite literally what ACES compares.

So before Nature opens the envelope:

What observable property makes a clock "perfect" according
to you, independently of whether it gives t'=t?

What are you fucking about, poor halfbrain? "perfect"
doesn't exist. How would it get an "observable property"?

Maciej,

Wonderful.

Two posts ago:

-a-a t'=t IF they used perfect clocks.

Now:

-a-a "perfect" doesn't exist
-a-a and cannot have an observable property.

And what are observable properties of your
perfect clocks? Apart, of course, fitting
The Shit's idiocies?

-a-a "Models made by competent people always have
-a-a-a emergency exits."

No.

A good physical theory has stated CONDITIONS OF VALIDITY.

I'm talking about models made by competent
people, not by the ignorant idiots from
your bunch of idiots.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Ah yes, your mysterious "competent people".

Meanwhile the "bunch of idiots" you keep insulting designed,
built and operate things like:

GPS
Galileo
atomic time standards
satellite navigation
ACES

Real systems.
Real clocks.
Real engineering.
Real measurements.

And they work.

Your "competent people", meanwhile, are remarkably difficult
to locate.

Where are their clocks?
Where are their satellites?
Where are their navigation systems?
Where are their measurements?

So far the only representative of this superior engineering
civilization you have produced is Maciej Wo+|niak posting
"poor halfbrain" and "bunch of idiots" on Usenet.

Quite a technological demonstrator.

The idiots have GPS.

The competent people apparently have insults.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 9:49 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Ah yes, your mysterious "competent people".

Meanwhile the "bunch of idiots" you keep insulting designed,
built and operate things like:

No. You're lying, like usual.

-a-a GPS
-a-a Galileo
-a-a atomic time standards
-a-a satellite navigation
-a-a ACES

Real systems.
Real clocks.
Real engineering.
Real measurements.

Really fucking your insane delusions of
perfect clocks and keeping them really
measuring t'=t.

So, what are your "observable properties"
of your perfect clocks, poor piece of shit?
No answer? Of course.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

You keep asking for the "observable properties" of a
PERFECT clock immediately after explaining yourself that
"perfect" doesn't exist.

Congratulations. You have now refuted your own question.

An ideal clock is a MODEL.

Real clocks have observable properties:
frequency, stability, accuracy, environmental sensitivities,
systematic shifts, uncertainty, etc.

And real atomic clocks can be compared.

Now your turn.

You claim GPS, Galileo and the rest are:

"really measuring t'=t"

Excellent.

SHOW THE MEASUREMENT.

Which clocks?
Which experiment?
Which observable?
Which published result gives t'=t?

One will do.

Because so far your entire experimental evidence for t'=t is:

Maciej says so on Usenet.

Rather poor measurement equipment for someone so concerned
about serious measurements.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 10:09 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

You keep asking for the "observable properties" of a
PERFECT clock immediately after explaining yourself that
"perfect" doesn't exist.

Congratulations. You have now refuted your own question.

Of course you're lying like always, it
was your question and when you laughed at
explaination that it is nonsensical -
I directed it to yourself.

An ideal clock is a MODEL.

Real clocks have observable properties:
frequency, stability, accuracy, environmental sensitivities,
systematic shifts, uncertainty, etc.

And real atomic clocks can be compared.

Now your turn.

You claim GPS, Galileo and the rest are:

-a-a "really measuring t'=t"

Excellent.

SHOW THE MEASUREMENT.

Which clocks?

Third, or 4th time, or maybe 5th, poor piece
of shit.
When a clock in GPS ground base is measuring
t=2026-09-23 22:00:00.00000000000- what is t'
measured by a clock on a GPS satellite?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Excellent.

You have finally asked the right question.

If the ground station says

GPS time = 22:00:00

what does the satellite broadcast?

Approximately

GPS time = 22:00:00

OF COURSE.

That is what GPS is ENGINEERED to do.

The satellite clock is deliberately frequency-adjusted so that
its output realizes GPS coordinate time.

NIST:

"The constellation clocks are set to beat at the average
coordinate rate corresponding to clocks at rest on the
surface of the rotating Earth by applying a 'factory
frequency offset' to the clocks before launch."

So your argument is now:

1. Relativity predicts different proper clock rates.
2. Engineers calculate the relativistic correction.
3. They adjust the satellite clocks accordingly.
4. The corrected clocks keep GPS time.
5. Maciej observes that they keep GPS time.
6. Therefore relativity is false.

Wonderful.

It's like adjusting two watches until they display the same time
and then announcing that the adjustment proves they never had
different rates.

And we have already discussed the particularly inconvenient
historical control experiment:

NTS-2 flew the atomic clock WITHOUT the relativistic frequency
correction for about twenty days.

Its measured rate shift agreed with the relativistic prediction.

THEN the correction was switched on.

You called those twenty days "initial mess" and "childish game".

So no, Maciej.

Showing me the CORRECTED GPS clock reading is not a measurement
of your alleged t'=t.

Show me your measurement that the UNCORRECTED satellite and
ground clocks have equal rates.

NTS-2 tried exactly that.

Unfortunately for you, Nature gave the wrong answer.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 10:29 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Excellent.

You have finally asked the right question.

If the ground station says

-a-a GPS time = 22:00:00

what does the satellite broadcast?

Approximately

-a-a GPS time = 22:00:00

OF COURSE.

That is what GPS is ENGINEERED to do.

Yes, it's engineered to fuck your mad
delusions of perfect differently clocks
and measure t'=t.
I don't know very much about other systems
mentioned by you, but I can bet the
engineers making them didn't share
your opinion that perfect clocks are
desynchronizing clocks either.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

This is getting wonderful.

You now admit you don't know much about the other systems,
but you are willing to BET what their engineers think.

So much for "serious measurement".

But let's stay with GPS, which you chose.

You say GPS was engineered to

"fuck your mad delusions"

and measure t'=t.

Unfortunately, the engineers left documentation.

NIST explains that GPS satellite clock rates are ADJUSTED
to match the coordinate rate of clocks on the geoid.

Why adjust them, Maciej?

If the physical clocks naturally measured your t'=t,
what exactly are the engineers compensating for?

Your argument has now become:

The clocks are corrected so that they agree.

They agree.

Therefore the correction proves there was
nothing to correct.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 10:41 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

This is getting wonderful.

You now admit you don't know much about the other systems,
but you are willing to BET what their engineers think.

Betting is always a risk, I'm ready to take it.

So much for "serious measurement".

But let's stay with GPS, which you chose.

You say GPS was engineered to

-a-a "fuck your mad delusions"

and measure t'=t.

Unfortunately, the engineers left documentation.

And even more unfortunately, you admit
the clocks ARE significantly different
than your perfect ones and ARE measuring
t'=t.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Forget "perfect clocks".

YOU claim GPS measures

t' = t

with real clocks.

Fine.

Now remove the engineering corrections.

What do the REAL satellite and ground atomic clocks do?

Do they still accumulate time at the same rate?

YES or NO?

Because if your answer is YES, the relativistic frequency
correction is pointless.

If your answer is NO, then your claim that GPS experimentally
measures the natural equality

t' = t

is false.

The fact that engineers can CORRECT two clocks so that they
realize the same coordinate time does not demonstrate that
their uncorrected rates were equal.

It demonstrates that the correction works.

And NTS-2 already performed the inconvenient experiment:

correction OFF -> predicted rate difference measured
correction ON -> clocks made suitable for GPS operation

You called the first part "childish" and the second part
"serious measurement".

So here is the question again, with no "perfect" anything:

UNCORRECTED REAL ATOMIC CLOCKS:

equal rates, YES or NO?

No sheep.
No sharks.
No priests.
No perfect clocks.

Just answer the question.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/23/2026 11:02 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Forget "perfect clocks".

YOU claim GPS measures

-a-a t' = t

with real clocks.

Fine.

Now remove the engineering corrections.

No.
Your assertion that it's going to be perfect
without them is as baseless as it is idiotic.

BTW. Your gurus are idiots, they screw what
they do every way possible. But science
has been working with scientist for centuries,
its idiotproofness is amazing, and The Shit
still has some emergency exits. The only
visible property of your perfect clocks is
fitting The Shit, when a clock doesn't fit it
it's going to become a wrong clock.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

NO ONE said that removing the correction makes the clock
"perfect".

I asked what the REAL clock MEASURES when the correction
is removed.

And your answer is:

No.

Excellent.

You refuse to look at the measurement and immediately return
to your imaginary "perfect clock".

But we don't need one.

Take a REAL atomic clock.
Measure its rate with the correction OFF.
Compare it with the ground reference.

That's an experiment.

And historically, NTS-2 did essentially exactly that.

So your position has become rather beautiful:

correction OFF:
"No! The clock isn't perfect!"

correction ON:
"Look! t'=t! Relativity is false!"

You reject the uncorrected measurement because the clock
doesn't give the answer you want, then use the corrected
measurement because it does.

And then YOU complain about "emergency exits".

Maciej, you've installed the emergency exit in the
experimental apparatus.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/24/2026 7:10 AM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

NO ONE said that removing the correction makes the clock
"perfect".

Python,
you're lying like always. Everyome of
your bunch of idiots does.

I asked what the REAL clock MEASURES when the correction
is removed.

When the corection is removed the clocks
become GEDANKEN.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/24/2026 7:10 AM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

NO ONE said that removing the correction makes the clock
"perfect".

I asked what the REAL clock MEASURES when the correction
is removed.

Why don't you ask about REAL (buhahahahaha)
unadjusted pendulum I can imagine on a GPS
satellite?

Your mad religion has persuaded you unadjusted
atomic clock is a perfect (almost) clock. But
this is just an assertion - as baseless as idiotic.
In the reality unadjusted atomic clocks have no
more significance than unadjusted pendulums.

The word of your idiot gurus is not a Law Of
The Nature Itself. What they choose for their
childish games is of no significance for the
reality.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

Henry,

No. Read what I actually wrote.

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will
show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines. Time and space are totally unrelated. Time is
the same everywhere.
...and incidentally, when you read my book, you will learn that time does
not 'move' at all.

I said:

Take two identical clocks. Separate them.
Give them different trajectories.
Reunite them.
Compare their readings.

There is no assumption about the result in that procedure.

They might read:

Clock A: 100000.000000 s Clock B: 100000.000000 s

or:

Clock A: 100000.000000 s Clock B: 99999.999997 s

THE CLOCKS DECIDE.

Your claim of absolute time predicts the former, subject of course to ordinary instrumental effects.

Relativity predicts the latter whenever the two worldlines have
different proper durations.

Calling this "circular logic" is rather wonderful. a

The whole purpose of doing the experiment is precisely NOT to assume
which prediction is correct.

And notice that I deliberately brought the clocks back together. No
distant simultaneity.
No telescope.
No "buzzing observers".
No argument about what somebody sees.
No need even to compare two coordinate systems at the end.

Two clocks.
One table.
Two readings.

If you want to defend absolute time, give YOUR quantitative prediction
for such an experiment and compare it with the measurements.

"Einsteinian worshipper" is not a prediction.

Nature keeps the accounts.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will
show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu particuli|?re.

Time and space are totally unrelated. Time is
the same everywhere.

Par contre, |oa, c'est faux.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Thu, 24 Sep 26 20:59:44 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will
show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu particuli|?re.

He probably realizes it is not the best way to describe the universe

Time and space are totally unrelated. Time is the same everywhere.

Par contre, |oa, c'est faux.

Pourquoi est-ce faux ? o|| est ta preuve

R.H.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 07:15:28 +0200, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 9/22/2026 10:53 PM, Python wrote:

Along the clock's own worldline it records its proper time tau.

Anyone can check GPS, this mad assertion has nothing in common wit the
real clocks.
It's just a nonsensical try to enforce engineers to participate in your madness.

Absolutely correct. The actual rate is unimportant so long as they all use
it and are all in absolute synch with each other

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 25/09/2026 |a 14:24, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Thu, 24 Sep 26 20:59:44 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will
show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu
particuli|?re.

He probably realizes it is not the best way to describe the universe

Time and space are totally unrelated. Time is the same everywhere.

Par contre, |oa, c'est faux.

Pourquoi est-ce faux ? o|| est ta preuve

R.H.

Both views are wrongrCoyours and his.

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation, and experimentation showsrCoor
will showrCothat you are both mistaken.

As for him, it is difficult to demonstrate, even though the physicists' explanation of the Langevin paradox is an absolute disgrace.
But Python will either yield or step aside.

For you, it is easier; I have no doubt about your interest in the truth.

But refusing to grasp that GPS systems require clock adjustments, that particles do not behave according to Newtonian physics at high speeds,
that stellar aberration exists, and so onrCothat is not healthy.

The truth, between you and him, lies with me.

And I stand right in the middle.

R.H.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 25 Sep 26 14:52:26 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 25/09/2026 |a 14:24, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Thu, 24 Sep 26 20:59:44 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will >>>>> show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu
particuli|?re.

He probably realizes it is not the best way to describe the universe

Time and space are totally unrelated. Time is the same everywhere.

Par contre, |oa, c'est faux.

Pourquoi est-ce faux ? o|| est ta preuve

R.H.

Both views are wrongrCoyours and his.

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation, and experimentation showsrCoor
will showrCothat you are both mistaken.

As for him, it is difficult to demonstrate, even though the physicists' explanation of the Langevin paradox is an absolute disgrace.
But Python will either yield or step aside.

For you, it is easier; I have no doubt about your interest in the truth.

But refusing to grasp that GPS systems require clock adjustments, that particles do not behave according to Newtonian physics at high speeds,

Of course the clocks have to be regularly software adjusted. Their
readings have to be kept in absolute synch

But there is no such thing as a 'high speed'. All speeds are relative to something. Speed, v, has dimensions L/T. How can Time be dependent a
function of v.

that stellar aberration exists, and so onrCothat is not healthy.

The truth, between you and him, lies with me.

And I stand right in the middle.

R.H.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 25 Sep 26 14:52:26 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 25/09/2026 |a 14:24, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Thu, 24 Sep 26 20:59:44 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will >>>>> show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu
particuli|?re.

He probably realizes it is not the best way to describe the universe

Time and space are totally unrelated. Time is the same everywhere.

Par contre, |oa, c'est faux.

Pourquoi est-ce faux ? o|| est ta preuve

R.H.

Both views are wrongrCoyours and his.

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation, and experimentation showsrCoor
will showrCothat you are both mistaken.

As for him, it is difficult to demonstrate, even though the physicists' explanation of the Langevin paradox is an absolute disgrace.
But Python will either yield or step aside.

For you, it is easier; I have no doubt about your interest in the truth.

But refusing to grasp that GPS systems require clock adjustments, that particles do not behave according to Newtonian physics at high speeds,
that stellar aberration exists, and so onrCothat is not healthy.

The truth, between you and him, lies with me.

And I stand right in the middle.

It is hard to work out where you stand.

R.H.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Richard,

"The ultimate arbiter is experimentation"

Absolutely.

"The truth, between you and him, lies with me."

Ah.

That was a remarkably short experimental phase. :-)

We went from

Experiment decides.

to

Richard decides.

in three paragraphs.

And I particularly like:

"And I stand right in the middle."

That is certainly convenient.

Henry says A.
Relativity says B.
Richard says C.

Therefore C is "in the middle", hence true.

Unfortunately, Nature has no obligation to place the correct
answer halfway between two people arguing on Usenet.

If Henry says 2+2=3 and I say 2+2=4, standing in the middle
doesn't make 3.5 a profound synthesis.

You started with the correct principle:

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation.

So let's keep that one.

Not:

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation,
except when Richard already knows where Truth is standing.

Nature gets a vote, Richard.

And unlike you, she doesn't automatically vote for the man
in the middle.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 25/09/2026 15:24, HenryWilson wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 26 20:59:44 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will
show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu
particuli|?re.

He probably realizes it is not the best way to describe the universe

The problem is that the best way to describe the Uniberse is not known.
Every one of the known ways fails to get right something that anotner
one does get right.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sat, 26 Sep 26 09:18:43 +0000, Python wrote:

Richard,

"The ultimate arbiter is experimentation"

Absolutely.

"The truth, between you and him, lies with me."

Ah.

That was a remarkably short experimental phase. :-)

We went from

Experiment decides.

to

Richard decides.

in three paragraphs.

And I particularly like:

"And I stand right in the middle."

That is certainly convenient.

Henry says A.
Relativity says B.
Richard says C.

Therefore C is "in the middle", hence true.

Unfortunately, Nature has no obligation to place the correct answer
halfway between two people arguing on Usenet.

If Henry says 2+2=3 and I say 2+2=4, standing in the middle doesn't make
3.5 a profound synthesis.

You started with the correct principle:

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation.

So let's keep that one.

Not:

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation,
except when Richard already knows where Truth is standing.

Nature gets a vote, Richard.

And unlike you, she doesn't automatically vote for the man in the
middle.

well in a way he is probably being sensible in removing himself from two theories that still cannot answer many basic questions. Your mob, for instance, just restates simple Newtonian phenomena in such ridiculously complicated ways that some people are impressed. For instance, I reckon
you really believe that Einstein's curved spacetime' explains why forces exist. Physics is still in its infancy. Hachel is French, and that alone
says a lot.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/26/2026 11:18 AM, Python wrote:

Richard,

-a-a "The ultimate arbiter is experimentation"

Absolutely.

-a-a "The truth, between you and him, lies with me."

Ah.

That was a remarkably short experimental phase. :-)

We went from

-a-a Experiment decides.

to

-a-a Richard decides.

in three paragraphs.

And I particularly like:

-a-a "And I stand right in the middle."

That is certainly convenient.

Henry says A.
Relativity says B.
Richard says C.

Therefore C is "in the middle", hence true.

Unfortunately, Nature has no obligation to place the correct
answer halfway between two people arguing on Usenet.

Particularly - since it has never said a single
word, not even talking about answering questions.

If Henry says 2+2=3 and I say 2+2=4, standing in the middle
doesn't make 3.5 a profound synthesis.

You started with the correct principle:

-a-a The ultimate arbiter is experimentation.

Nope. The ultimate arbiter is an idiot screaming
"EXPERIMENTATION!!!! EXPERIMENTATION!!!!!!!".
R can be as good one as your insane guru.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Nature doesn't need to speak.

Theory A predicts X.
Theory B predicts Y.
The experiment measures X.

That's Nature's "answer".

The screaming idiot is irrelevant.

That's rather the point of doing experiments
instead of reading Usenet.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/26/2026 12:40 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Nature doesn't need to speak.

And it can't, too.

Theory A predicts X.
Theory B predicts Y.
The experiment measures X.

And a screaming idiot wave its arms
and screams "THESE CLOCKS ARE NOT
PERFECT CLOCKS!!!!! THE PERFECT
CLOCK MUST GIVE THE RESULT PREDICTED
BY OUR BELOVED GURU!!!!!! BECAUSE
- EXPERIMENTATIONS!!! EXPERIMENTATIONS!!!
As it is in the case of GPS clocks
measuring t'=t.

That's Nature's "answer".

No. That's a measurement result.
We change the measurment procedure ->
we're getting another result, the way
we like.

Yes, a screaming idiot is relevant.
But, since nature doesn't speak - he
may be sure that it is not going to
deny his "THE NATURE ITSELF IS
VOTING FOR MY CRAP!!!" crap.







--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

We change the measurement procedure ->
we're getting another result, the way we like.

EXCELLENT.

You have finally described what happened with NTS-2.

Procedure 1:

real cesium clock in orbit
relativistic synthesizer OFF
measure its rate against ground clocks

Result:

measured: +442.5 x 10^-12
predicted: +446.5 x 10^-12

Then they changed the procedure.

Procedure 2:

switch the frequency synthesizer ON

Result:

the clock rate immediately changes toward the
coordinate rate required for navigation.

And YOU point to Procedure 2 and say:

LOOK! t'=t!

Maciej, you have just explained why your own argument fails.

Yes:

change the procedure -> change the result.

That is precisely why I keep pointing you to the measurement
BEFORE the correction was switched on.

No "perfect clock" is involved.
No guru decides whether the clock is good.
No result is being rejected.

Both results are measurements.

OFF -> rate difference.

ON -> compensated rate.

The change when the synthesizer was switched on is itself
part of the experimental record.

So please explain your alternative without screaming about
"perfect clocks":

Why did the REAL cesium clock show approximately the
relativistically predicted rate difference with the
synthesizer OFF?

And why did its measured rate change when the correction
was switched ON?

Those are measurements, Maciej.

Nature doesn't speak.

Fortunately, oscilloscopes don't need to.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/26/2026 1:06 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

We change the measurement procedure ->
we're getting another result, the way we like.

EXCELLENT.

You have finally described what happened with NTS-2.

Procedure 1:

-a-a real cesium clock in orbit
-a-a relativistic synthesizer OFF
-a-a measure its rate against ground clocks

Result:

-a-a measured:-a-a +442.5 x 10^-12
-a-a predicted:-a +446.5 x 10^-12

Then they changed the procedure.

Procedure 2:

-a-a switch the frequency synthesizer ON

Result:

-a-a the clock rate immediately changes toward the
-a-a coordinate rate required for navigation.

And YOU point to Procedure 2 and say:

-a-a LOOK! t'=t!

Maciej, you have just explained why your own argument fails.

Yes:

-a-a change the procedure -> change the result.

Yes. To obtain your idiocies you had
to redefine a second. Similarly - you
can redefine a shark to "confirm" a theory
of sharks eating grass. Nature has nothing
in common with that, nature doesn't deal
with words and claims at all. Neither it
does with measurements, measuring devices
and measurement procedures.

No "perfect clock" is involved.
No guru decides whether the clock is good.
No result is being rejected.

Both results are measurements.

OFF -> rate difference.

ON-a -> compensated rate.

The change when the synthesizer was switched on is itself
part of the experimental record.

So please explain your alternative without screaming about
"perfect clocks":

Why did the REAL cesium clock show approximately the
relativistically predicted rate difference with the
synthesizer OFF?

Because if they weren't fitting your madness
you wouldn't appoint them as the almost-perfect
clocks and they wouldn't make any career.

See, poor piece of shit - for any theory saying
anything about time and clocks you can make
clocks fitting that and say "LOOK!!! THE REAL
MEASUREMENTS!!! THE NATURE ITSELF IS BLESSING
MY CRAP!!!". Since nature doesn't speak - it's
not going to deny.

And why did its measured rate change when the correction
was switched ON?

Those are measurements, Maciej.

Nature doesn't speak.

Sane people have other ones, giving t'=t.
And nature doesn't speak.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Good.

We have now reached the really interesting part.

You say:

"Sane people have other [measurements], giving t'=t."

Excellent.

SHOW ONE.

Not a philosophy of measurement.
Not sharks.
Not sheep.
Not "perfect clocks".
Not "sane people".
Not what you think GPS engineers believe.

One actual experiment.

Give us:

1. the two real clocks,
2. their trajectories/locations,
3. the measurement procedure,
4. the measured quantity,
5. the measured result,
6. the uncertainty,
7. the published reference,

showing your claimed

t' = t.

Because I have given you an actual historical experiment
with an actual cesium clock and an actual measured frequency
difference.

Your explanation of that measurement is now:

They chose cesium clocks because otherwise
they wouldn't fit relativity and wouldn't
"make any career".

That's not an alternative physical explanation.

That's a conspiracy theory with error bars.

And your positive experimental evidence for t'=t remains:

"Sane people have other ones."

Fine.

Name one.

One experiment will do.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/26/2026 1:31 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Good.

We have now reached the really interesting part.

You say:

-a-a "Sane people have other [measurements], giving t'=t."

Excellent.

SHOW ONE.

5,6 or maybe 7th time:
a clock in GPS ground base is measuring
t= 2026-09-26 12:00:00.00000000000.
What is t' measured by a clock on a
satellite?

Your explanation of that measurement is now:

They chose cesium clocks because otherwise
they wouldn't fit relativity and wouldn't
"make any career".

That's not an alternative physical explanation.
That's a conspiracy theory with error bars.

That's a fact. No, no conspiracy.
You're too stupid for any conspiracy.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Le 26/09/2026 |a 11:18, Python a |-crit :

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation.

Pas forc|-ment.

L'arbitre peut |-tre l'intelligence th|-orique. Si une th|-orie n'a
aucune chance d'|-tre vraie, parce qu'elle est absurde et contradictoire (d|-faillance interne) on peut affirmer que ses conclusions seront
fausses.

Tu es aujourd'hui plus savant qu'un grand ponte de la physique car, ayant r|-fl|-chi |a pas mal de choses sur les derniers mois, tu en sais plus
qu'eux sur des notions comme l'anisochronie, le direct-live et le zoom spatial. Quer ces notions soient vraies ou fausses, tu les connais. Tu as cette connaissance que tu as |-tudi|-e, eux non.

Eux, ils croient, parce qu'il n'ont jamais essay|- de penser |a autre
chose, que Vapp=0.8 (faux), que D=7.2 (faux), et que Tr=9 (vrai).

L'aveuglement est donc total.

On se rend compte que la th|-orie est absurde, puisque D=Vapp.Tapp (o|| Tapp=Tr puisqu'on est au niveau de Stella).

Ici va s'ajouter l'arrogance : "C'est pas un tout petit bachelier de
merde qui va nous enseigner la relativit|-".

Ici, c'est la th|-orie qui gagne sur l'exp|-rimentation (qui ne pourra
que confirmer que 9*4=36.

So let's keep that one.

Not:

The ultimate arbiter is experimentation,
except when Richard already knows where Truth is standing.

Nature gets a vote, Richard.

And unlike you, she doesn't automatically vote for the man
in the middle.

Je suis au milieu dans le sens o|| je suis d'accord avec lui s'il pose
que, de fa|oon tr|?s newtionienne : Tr=sqrt(2D/a)
et que je suis d'accord avec toi si tu poses To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c-#/ax).

Nous avons nos deux temps. Tr=4.776 ans, To=12.9156 ans, chacun d'entre
vous ayant 10/20 |a l'interrogation.

R.H.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

8th time, then:

YES.

The corrected GPS satellite clock is engineered to keep
approximately the same GPS coordinate time as the ground system.

Nobody disputes that.

Now explain how this demonstrates that the correction
was unnecessary.

Your argument is:

ground clock: 12:00:00
corrected satellite:12:00:00

THEREFORE t'=t.

But the satellite clock was deliberately frequency-adjusted
so that this would happen.

That's the whole point.

You keep showing me the OUTPUT AFTER COMPENSATION
as evidence that there was nothing to compensate.

I ask:

What happens WITHOUT the compensation?

You answer:

Look at the compensated clock!

I ask again:

What was measured by NTS-2 before the correction
was switched on?

You answer:

Look at modern corrected GPS clocks!

This isn't an experiment demonstrating t'=t.

It's a feedback loop in the conversation.

And you still haven't provided your promised measurement
from "sane people" giving t'=t.

You have provided a clock engineered to display GPS time.

Those are not the same proposition.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/26/2026 1:50 PM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

8th time, then:

YES.

The corrected GPS satellite clock is engineered to keep
approximately the same GPS coordinate time as the ground system.

Nobody disputes that.

YES. Sane people have different measurements,
giving t'=t. YES. They measure the real time
instead your mystical nonsense. And you
should stop disputing that.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Maciej,

Sane people have different measurements,
giving t'=t.

Excellent.

NAME ONE.

Not a corrected GPS clock.

We have already agreed what that measures:

corrected ground clock -> GPS coordinate time
corrected satellite clock -> GPS coordinate time

Of course they give approximately:

t' = t.

THEY WERE ENGINEERED TO DO THAT.

NIST says explicitly:

"GPS satellite clocks are given this offset before
launch so that in orbit, they will beat at the
correct coordinate rate."

That's not Python.
That's the people who actually do the metrology.


Your claim is different.

You claim that "sane people have DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS"
showing that the natural physical result is:

t' = t.

Fine.

Give ONE.

1. Which clocks?

2. Where / on what trajectories?

3. What correction was applied?

4. What quantity was compared?

5. What was the measured result?

6. What was the uncertainty?

7. Where was it published?

ONE experiment will do.


Because pointing for the ninth time at a clock which has
been deliberately adjusted to realize the same coordinate
time is not a ninth experiment.

It is the same category error nine times.


It's like this:

BEFORE adjustment:
clock has rate offset X

ENGINEERS:
apply correction -X

AFTER adjustment:
clocks agree

MACIEJ:
AHA! X NEVER EXISTED!


By that argument, thermostats prove houses never get cold.


And notice how your claim has quietly changed.

A few posts ago:

"Sane people have OTHER measurements giving t'=t."

Now your evidence is again:

corrected GPS clocks give t'=t.

No, Maciej.

Those are precisely the measurements we were already
discussing.

Where are the OTHER ones?


Reference.
Apparatus.
Result.
Uncertainty.

You said they exist.

Show one.

Because so far the "idiots" have GPS, atomic clocks,
published measurements and correction equations.

The "sane people" have Maciej saying:

YES.

in capital letters.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Sat, 26 Sep 2026 12:20:33 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 25/09/2026 15:24, HenryWilson wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 26 20:59:44 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

Le 24/09/2026 |a 22:47, HenryWilson a |-crit :

On Wed, 23 Sep 26 09:55:36 +0000, Python wrote:

I did NOT assume that two clocks following different worldlines will >>>>> show different elapsed times.

Forget you silly worldlines.

Oui, |oa, c'est vrai.

La fa|oon dont Python aborde la th|-orie de la relativit|- est un peu
particuli|?re.

He probably realizes it is not the best way to describe the universe

The problem is that the best way to describe the Uniberse is not known.
Every one of the known ways fails to get right something that anotner
one does get right.

Aha! You have finally made a reasonably valid point. We are a long way
from explaining everything...but Newton's approach is the most successful.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 9/27/2026 1:54 AM, Python wrote:

Maciej,

Sane people have different measurements,
giving t'=t.

Excellent.

NAME ONE.

Not a corrected GPS clock.

Why not?
A calibrated clock is a wrong clock?
Or just - any clock not fitting The Shit
of your idiot guru is a wrong clock?



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

HenryWilson wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2026 12:20:33 +0300, Mikko wrote:

The problem is that the best way to describe the Uniberse is not known.
Every one of the known ways fails to get right something that anotner
one does get right.

Aha! You have finally made a reasonably valid point. We are a long way
from explaining everything...but Newton's approach is the most
successful.

idiot, you are born an imbecile
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2